The Hook: The New York Times article “The Mississippi Pardons” by Bob Herbert is an editorial trying to persuade the reader that the release of Jamie and Gladys Scott from serving double life sentences in prison by Mississippi governor Haley Barbour is not only an act of compassion, but morally correct and absolutely necessary. The question is, are the rhetorical tools of ethos, pathos, and logos used in the article effective enough to convince the readers? You be the judge.
The Story: The sisters were said to have persuaded two men to go to a rural area outside of Forest, Mississippi, in 1993, where the men were robbed by three teenagers who Jamie and Gladys knew. A total of $11 dollars were taken and no one was harmed.
Why we care: Governor Barbour has already pardoned 5 men, all with charges of murder, from their life sentences. They had all previously been in a prison program that had allowed them to work at the Governor's mansion. If he's already pardoned these men, why not the two sisters??
Ethos:
The information in the article is not specific, with few direct quotes. This could lead to decreased credibility because of the ambiguous sources of information. Your average Joe might not care, but your average New York Times reader will. If the information isn't reliable, why should they be bothered to act on something that they may have been misinformed of?
However, the New York Times has also been described as a more liberal paper, so the readers might already have strong opinions for the sisters to be released because of the type of information they are used to seeing in the paper. This article was published for the purpose of gaining support from the liberal readers that are in favor of pardoning those who have been punished too harshly.
Pathos:
The first emotional appeal comes in the author's noting that one of the sisters, Jamie, is suffering severely from medial problems, specifically kidney failure. The sisters are saying that Jamie will most likely die in prison because of her health problems. This strikes a chord with the readers, because almost everyone knows someone with a horribly painful medical condition and knows the hardship that the situation puts you in. More people will want to root for the sisters' release because they want Jamie to have time to live before she dies.
Another well employed appeal to the emotions of the readers is the quote at the end of the article from the sisters' mother, saying, “I wish they would just hurry up and let them out. I hope that is where it is leading to. That would be the only justified thing to do.” Everyone has a mother or a mother-like figure in their lives that they respect and admire, a woman they would do anything for. By putting the mother's quote in the article, the author reaches into that sentimental pocket and pulls out a deep emotional connection that the readers feel, making them want to sympathize with the mother and help her get her children back.
The diction that the author uses makes his opinion clear, and also helps to persuade the reader that there is “only one real choice.” Phrases such as “unconscionable and grotesquely inhumane,” “unquestionably committed shockingly brutal crimes,” “dangerous abuses of executive power,” and “beyond disturbing” are examples of the type of writing the author uses to make his point. These words put the situation in a “black or white” light, displaying good and evil, with no gray in between. These make the reader feel like it is their moral responsibility to favor the sisters and support them however they can. Readers that do not immediately take the sisters' side might even be criticized as cruel and without a heart.
As I looked for more information on this case, I found that several articles used a quote from Benjamin Jealous, the president of the NAACP, that the author of this article chose not to include. Jealous said, “It is a travesty that in the state of Mississippi, the lives of two Black women are valued at little more than 11 dollars.” I think the author omitted this quote for a purpose. By taking out the racial part of the equation, the case is solely a moral argument, with no other factors, like race, that could taint the argument with misconceived prejudice and irrelevant hate.
Logos:
The juxtaposition of the sisters' double life sentence to the two year sentence of the teens who actually robbed the victims serves to further the author's point that the sentence placed upon the sisters is too severe and that it should be rescinded as soon as possible. In my opinion, the author is so against the sentence placed upon these sisters that he thinks that the governor should make the sisters homemade cookies and write an apology letter in addition to pardoning them.
Another appeal to logic is the governor's track record – he's already “...pardoned, granted clemency to, or suspended the sentences of at least five convicted murderers, four of whom killed their wives or girlfriends” (Slate.com). Why then would he have a problem
releasing two middle-aged women who were only accomplices to the robbery? It also brings up a point of controversy that further weakens the governor: all the pardoned men had been in a program that allowed them to work in the governor's mansion in a prison trusty program prior to their pardons. This bit of information leaves us to wonder whether the governor pardoned them for legitimate reasons. The way the information in the article is presented is a logical appeal in itself. After the first paragraph, the odds are already stacked in favor of the two sisters because the article has been set up in the best way possible to keep our interest and our opinion. The author reels in his readers by minimizing the involvement of the sisters and making the severity of their sentence seem nonsensical. He then gives the obvious “right choice” to pardon the sisters from their sentences, and finally fills in the details by using supporting information to back up his point while subtly attacking the opposing side of the situation. This grabs the reader from the start and doesn't let them go until they are thoroughly convinced of the author's opinion and make it their own opinion as well.
The Verdict:
.jpg)
The author did a great job using rhetorical appeals to convince his readers, and an even broader audience of average people, to side with the incarcerated sisters in their petition for a pardon. Despite the authors misuse of ethos in giving ambiguous information that could have possibly been detrimental, his use of pathos and logos more than made up for it. The emotional appeals of reader association and diction were used effectively to make the audience feel connected to the sisters and their plight. The logical appeals of organization and background information serve to satisfy the intellectual reader by bringing up new points proven by fact to help further the argument. I'd say the article is effective because, hey, I'm convinced.
No comments:
Post a Comment